Professor John attacks “unhelpful” BSB complaints report

A report for the Bar Standards Board (BSB), which concluded that the regulator handled complaints involving ethnic minority barristers in a “transparent, consistent and fair” way, has been strongly attacked by equality expert Professor Gus John.

However, giving expert evidence at the High Court earlier this month, Professor John described the report for the BSB by consultants at Inclusive Employers as “singularly unhelpful”.

He said the report “ultimately fails to meet its own commissioning terms of reference as no qualitative investigation seems to have been undertaken” and did not take understanding of the issue of ethnic disproportionality “much beyond the parameters” of earlier research by the Bar Council.

Professor John said the report did not present a critique of the current BSB complaints handling and investigation system, and failed to suggest possible improvements.

He went on: “The report does not enable the BSB itself, or any other reader, to understand what might account for disproportionality in the number of internal complaints raised against BME barristers, or in the adverse outcomes of the complaints handling process for both external and internal complaints.”

He concluded: “My overall assessment is that the review is singularly unhelpful to the BSB as a regulator concerned to understand and tackle the disproportionate impact of its complaints-handling protocols and procedures upon BME barristers.”

He added that the BSB was recommended by Inclusive Employers to commission an external equality expert to investigate complaints handling.

“It is clearly a matter for the BSB whether or not it adopts that recommendation,” he said. “The danger remains, however, that while these investigations and reviews continue apace, business will go on as usual and the complaints-handling process could well continue to give rise to damaging consequences for BME barristers.”

A spokesman for the BSB said the organisation was “unable to comment on a matter that may still be subject to an appeal.”

It was obvious that the BSB report was literally a whitewash. It was commissioned by a friend of a friend and its purpose was to try and fool people into thinking a proper investigation had been conducted. In fact, as on other occasions with the BSB, it has acted in a manner which is not transparent and way below the standards that the public should expect.

Paul on December 24th, 2014 at 12:24 am

This was an independent report. The conclusions were that our complaints processes are clear and balanced, but the report did make some recommendations for practical improvements to our processes on which we acted. We continue to keep our policies and processes under review to make sure that they are fair and robust.

Legal Futures Blog

Written in honour of Malcolm Young, recently deceased founding member of AC/DC, there are nine references to AC/DC songs throughout this article. We will send a £20 iTunes voucher to the first person who gets in touch to tell us what they are. The forces that are driving change in the legal profession are wide and varied. The ability of law firms and individual solicitors to respond positively and innovatively to these challenges will determine who survives and prospers. Competition for new business is fierce, a dog eat dog world, one might say. Which brings us to AC/CD. Not my favourite rock band, but an acronym for Attract, Convert, Close and Delight – the four pillars of inbound marketing.